@samo79I got the .diff files (aka differences made by Mr. Strohmayer) (which means v3.32). If I remember he asked me not to share this code. That's why I tell people to ask him directly. I don't have time to check ancient emails to see what was discussed in detail back then. I wanted to say only that it's not impossible to contact him.

@trixieBack then when I had a working x86 computer at home and working cross compiler environment but because I'm not familiar with C++ I didn't understand all error messages from the compiler. Being able to fix some of them there was still a lot more. Strohmayer and the author of MUI-OWB have said they're using their own way to compile OWB. But either of them never bothered to tell in public (or to me) how they did it.

Then trying to compile it on AmigaOS there's too many missing dependencies which have to be ported to AmigaOS first. Don't know how easy it would be to port them all because of these missing Unix stuff in AmigaOS. I tried to compile it again to get the list of missing dependencies last night. But I couldn't get even Cmake to work. Don't remember anymore how I did it years ago.

@allIt's better idea to make a fresh port of Webkit directly and then make your own browser around it.

People said it was impossible to get the sources so I tried if it's impossible or not back then. Also I have had a lot of my own projects going on all the time to have enough time or energy for anything like this.

(Edit) Also MUI-OWB and Timberwolf were coming back then so there was not urgent need for yet another version of OWB.

I got the .diff files (aka differences made by Mr. Strohmayer) (which means v3.32). If I remember he asked me not to share this code. That's why I tell people to ask him directly. I don't have time to check ancient emails to see what was discussed in detail back then. I wanted to say only that it's not impossible to contact him.

Good news then Don't know others but my latest mails was never replied so i give up at some point

I don't understand why the source can't be released freely, but if the problem is only that (and if he reply at your mail) please can you drop to him a quick mail asking the question ?

Quote:

Strohmayer and the author of MUI-OWB have said they're using their own way to compile OWB. But either of them never bothered to tell in public (or to me) how they did it.

kas1e is the author of the MUI OWB port and he used the crosscompile method aswell, if you need i'm sure he can share and teach you with all details

Quote:

Then trying to compile it on AmigaOS there's too many missing dependencies which have to be ported to AmigaOS first. Don't know how easy it would be to port them all because of these missing Unix stuff in AmigaOS. I tried to compile it again to get the list of missing dependencies last night. But I couldn't get even Cmake to work. Don't remember anymore how I did it years ago.

As far as i know (for the OWB project) all deps and libraries are already ported native to OS4, maybe the only one "incerted" is CMake, but recently Alfkil port it aswell, this one need to be tested with OWB but in the worse case you can still with the functional cross-compiling method

Quote:

It's better idea to make a fresh port of Webkit directly and then make your own browser around it.

Why ?Reaction OWB is just incomplete, when you have a program that work there is no need to rewrite a new browser from scratch if you ask me ..

At the end we have also MUI OWB that is more or less another fork of the same core engine, so i can't see the reason for another new fork --> aka time loss

If you ask me, its all fucking madness. No one just want to make it normally and put on source forge, where we all from all camps can works on one owb. Joerg hold it all by some strange reasons (all those write mail to ask, suck and annoy a lot). Fab do not want to put it on svn. No one just want to make all normally. Only netsurf is fine in that terms, but it also for now still can't render everything the same as all those webkit based browsers.

I respect other people's work so I don't require anyone to give away what they did. Fab has invested incredible time, effort and talent into his OWB for MorphOS - if he wants to control the development himself and keep the product as a courtesy to MorphOS users only, this is absolutely fine with me.

What I don't quite understand is Joerg's position. He lost interest, quit the development, and yet did everything to stop others from taking up his work ("I can only send you diffs, not the full source", "I won't tell you how to compile the thing - find out for yourself", etc. - DISCLAIMER: these are re-phrases, not direct quotes).

I respect other people's work so I don't require anyone to give away what they did. Fab has invested incredible time, effort and talent into his OWB for MorphOS - if he wants to control the development himself and keep the product as a courtesy to MorphOS users only, this is absolutely fine with me.

Sure, its not Fab to blame, but whole situation. But can you imagine that i for first loose half of year with deniil so to make old version works, and now, i need to repeat it all the same, instead of having #ifdef __amigaos4__, so it will be pure recompile ? I can understand everything, but i not so in big interest to spend so much of time all the time to just recompile new version. Its all just time consuming and suck. I have nothing back from such work in general. Now to make new port i now should spend a lot of time for what was done already before, because sources not on SF, and because i need to write to Fab, ask him, be in position of sucker who cry for code.. blew.. then check how it now start to compiles (because how can i know what he do and how he do now), start to compare all that beast with previous one, do all those annoying tests days and nights.

Its just somehow "amiga" again , when you have source, but you don't have source, but you have source, so you can, but you don't because you can't because you haven't. Only amiga.

I see there is lately ppls says "they do work on something, so its their deal to opensource it or not". Sure, its their business, but in whole its suck to close sources today. Specially when initial work was done by another ppls (i am not about owb now, but about any other code, which after opensource splits on os4/mos/aros forks in different place, and all closed source. I.e. fixes/changes on the work done by others, start to be close source. Cool, yeah ?:) ).

Edited by kas1e on 2013/6/27 9:32:22Edited by kas1e on 2013/6/27 9:39:10

That is kinda what open-source is, from a certain point of view! Everyone is able to contribute, but they don't get any benefit apart from (a) the prestige for having done the work, and (b) hopefully something they can use themselves.

Open-source clearly works in some situations, but it is not a magical solution to cure-all-ills. It has both pros & cons, and sometimes the cons heavily outweigh the pros.

_________________
Author of the PortablE programming language.I love using Amiga OS4.1 It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue...

I do not subscribe to this opinion. If everything is open and free, there is no property = there is no value. We've had this situation before; it was called communism.

I am sure you got what i mean. Its not that hard to be black or white. Its just today on all that amigas, when we have 100-200 users in whole, close source programs and make them for 10 ppls just crazy. No one say that anyone should give something to someone for free, or anything , or make a communism or whatever you see in that , its just fact: we have 100-200 users, almost none developers, and still, some of devs prefers to sit on sources.

Its not communism, its egoism from some. We not on linux, on windows, or on macos. We at amigas with 100 ppls user base. But still, some try to acts like "yeah, our big world of amiga programs and users !".

Some ppls in amiga world today so fear about their "intellectual property" , like anyone give a #OOPS# about :) or anyone will make any money on it, or dunno what they think. But whatever they think its all like this: big part of SW die on one OS, and after developer give it a rest and loose interest its all forgotten and die => less SW => less users => less interest => amiga1200.

I do not subscribe to this opinion. If everything is open and free, there is no property = there is no value. We've had this situation before; it was called communism.

Bah communism, communism is an economy and political idea .. here it will be just a normal collaboration between various people to make better software.

Closing an already open software (OWB) does not make any benefits at all expecially on our small community

I don't see any reason to close a software and then maybe say: if you want the source ask me by email .. just release it in a proper SVN and anyone can work on it and then improve it aswell for the benefits of all camps

Fab is a very good developers but he could benefit from an outside help aswell

You deal with people here so while ideals are certainly good, the human factor gets in the way.

On a minority platform like AmigaOS, writing software brings some kind of status or prestige - like it or not. Unlike on Windows or Linux with thousands of anonymous developers, being known as "the guy who wrote that program" can work as a significant motivational factor. Funny? Well, the three hundred Amiga users who admire you is generally more than the number of people who admire you in your real life, so let psychology work.

On the other hand, open source brings another, completely different kind of motivation: being part of a team that works towards a common goal. But people naturally differ in what motivates them, so while some developers will be happy as a puppy to contribute to team work, others will want to keep the prize and stay in full control of the program they made.

This is why open source can neither work universally, nor can it be enforced.

@samo79I got the .diff files (aka differences made by Mr. Strohmayer) (which means v3.32). If I remember he asked me not to share this code.

What kind of license has OWB got? If its the most free variant, I'd guess it'd be out right wrong to keep them closed.But I assume its one of those where you can add closed source modules and use the rest as-is.

I remembered what was wrong with Cmake. AmigaOS don't have a concept of file name extensions. So when Cmake is trying to open f.ex. CMakeCCompiler but the full file name is CMakeCompiler.cmake it can't open it. It looks like also Linux besides Windows can ignore extensions automatically. So the solution is to rename all cmake files manually and remove the trailing .cmake from the names.

Also I found Bison and libsxlt as 68k versions from Aminet. I don't know if they're too old versions. But Cmake can find them so far. So all dependencies are basically met.

I remembered also that AmigaOS is missing ccmake so one would still need a cross compiling environment to configure everything first with ccmake. Then one can move the files to Amiga system and try to do the rest of compiling (if one wants to do so instead of using cross compiling for everything).

Now I'm stuck trying to get Cmake to find a path to SDL includes files and TTF font files.

Just for the record, Odyssey is already in a versioning system, and that's MorphOS CVS. I just don't want to maintain two different branches of it.

And really, the amigaos4 diffs are really minimal, small enough that they can be kept in small patches that apply to any given snaphot i could provide.

Odyssey is also not merged in WebKit official tree because (assuming it would be accepted) it would just be too much work dealing with a project of that kind, much more than simply applying patches whenever i feel like doing so.

That being said, each time i merge WebKit (about every month, latest is from June 2013), it's quite some work. I generally get 20-50MB diffs, depending on WebKit project activity, with a couple dozens of conflcts, new API changes to deal with, new implementations, new generic bugs to iron out and so on...

So it really doesn't compare to the amigaos4 diffs. These ones mostly apply to the morphos part and this one i don't change in a major way so often, so it won't conflict a lot. It's really the easy part...

As for which of Reaction or MUI OWB is the best, well, the feature list is self-explanatory i think... If the font look is poor, that's because the fontconfig default config file has probably not been supplied or set correctly in the OWB OS4 archive (like bad kerning or antialiasing, or poor choice of fonts). Speedwise, it's faster in scrolling for design reasons, and network access is just as fast since it's based on the very same curl backend (and if the os4 port had a working curl threaded implementation, it would be entirely non-blocking as well, like on MorphOS). Odyssey 1.9 is old for sure, but on MorphOS it was stable (like a couple weeks uptime...), so i would look elsewhere about this kind of issues.

I find MUI-OWB very stable on OS 4.1, don't think I've ever had it crash actually.

Of course, Odyssey on MOS is light-years ahead, and it would be nice if we just focussed our attention on one browser, this works well for the MorphOS community, and they now have HTML 5 video support, rudimentary Flash etc. none of which are on any OS 4 browser still.

React-OWB was fine when I used it in 2008 but since MUI-OWB came out I've not used it, Timberwolf is too slow, bloated and has too much of a non-Amiga UI for me to enjoy using, not to mention Firefox itself is past its prime and declining rapidly in market-share to Webkit based browsers (like OWB).

Netsurf has potential, but it lacks Javascript.

It would be great if we could just focus on one browser, I'd nominate MUI-OWB as the most feature-complete and Amiga-like browser we have, with the benefit of having an industry standard, modern engine too.